yc_list_operations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that no YC request is issued, telling the agent no credentials, latency, or remote side effects are involved. Minor tension: openWorldHint=true suggests external interaction while the text asserts none, though this reads as a scope clarification rather than a real contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, with the resource stated first and the key behavioral constraint front-loaded in second position. No filler, no redundancy with the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is trivial in shape (no inputs) and has an output schema, so return-value detail is unnecessary. The only meaningful gap is the absence of an explicit pointer to sibling operations tools when the agent actually wants execution rather than enumeration.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with additionalProperties false, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly spends no words on parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"List locally registered operation documents" gives a specific verb (list) and resource (operation documents) with a scoping adjective (locally registered) that separates this from remote execution tools. It stops short of naming a sibling such as yc_run_operation or yc_status, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Makes no YC request" implies the usage context (offline, purely local reads), which helps an agent pick this over network-touching siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.